Tom,
Thanks for the compliment on the photos, pretty easy job when that is your backdrop. I am in complete agreement about Banff, there are certainly a tonne of courses in the 44 spots ahead that are undeserving. I am sure that does not come as a surprise to you.
Ran,
I guess I miss what Ian Andrew likes about the 16th at Banff, for me that is where the weak spell begins. 16, 17, 18, 1 and 3 are not the strongest at Banff. I really do not care for 3, the others are fine, but nothing stands out and 18 is disrupted by the road and its traffic.
I think I have talked enough about 10-15, they are sublime.
Jeff should really answer the CBH questions, he is more of an expert than I, but he is away for a few more days, so I will stand in.
Cape Breton's "galaxy" stretch as you put it is a pretty great stretch. First of all 2 and 6 really are better than 14 and 15 (Banff's strongest). Subtract the drama of the hotel and I think that it would not be as close. That said 3 is a good par three, four a good short par four, not necessarily Stanley's strong suit, and another three at five that is solid. Six is great and I am a big fan of seven, that hole always gets me.
Compare that to the Banff's best and I think you have a greater variety of holes; 2 threes (similar yardage, true of Banff too), 2 fours (one long, one short) and two fives, which are very different. So in that sense I give the edge to HL there.
As for the weak holes, you are right with 8 and 9, 10 is not bad, 11 and I sort of like 12, despite many protests. Overall not as weak as the stretch at Banff and it has the luxury of not ending the course and being sandwiched between some really good golf holes.
What makes it better? Hmm.. I cannot answer that off the top of my head. Better variety and better use of undulation. Greens are probably a touch better and the short game plays more of a role, but I want to give a better answer, so I will think about it more.